Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157:643-651.
Copyright © 2003 by Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Randomized Trial of Financial Incentives and Delivery Methods for Improving Response to a Mailed Questionnaire
1 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD.
2 Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
3 Westat, Incorporated, Rockville, MD.
In a follow-up study, only 64% of 126,628 US radiologic technologists completed a questionnaire during 1994–1997 after two mailings. The authors conducted a randomized trial of financial incentives and delivery methods to identify the least costly approach for increasing overall participation. They randomly selected nine samples of 300 nonresponders each to receive combinations of no, $1.00, $2.00, and $5.00 cash or check incentives delivered by first-class mail or Federal Express. Federal Express delivery did not achieve greater participation than first-class mail (23.2% vs. 23.7%). In analyses pooled across delivery methods, the response was significantly greater for the $2.00 bill (28.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 25.2, 32.7; p < 0.0001), $5.00 check (27.5%, 95% CI: 22.5, 33.0; p = 0.0001), $1.00 bill (24.6%, 95% CI: 21.2, 28.3; p = 0.0007), and $2.00 check (21.8%, 95% CI: 18.5, 25.3; p = 0.02) compared with no incentive (16.6%, 95% CI: 13.7, 19.9). The response increased significantly with increasing incentive amounts from $0.00 to $2.00 cash (p trend < 0.0001). The $2.00 bill achieved a 30% greater response than did a $2.00 check (p = 0.005). For incentives sent by first-class mail, the $5.00 check yielded 30% greater participation than did the $2.00 check (p = 0.07). A $1.00 bill, chosen instead of the $2.00 bill because of substantially lower overall cost and sent by first-class mail to the remaining 42,717 nonresponders, increased response from 64% to 72%.
cohort studies; data collection; epidemiologic methods; motivation; nonresponse; postal service; questionnaires; randomized controlled trials
Abbreviations: Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Thompson, T. Baranowski, K. Cullen, K. Watson, A. Canada, R. Bhatt, Y. Liu, and I. Zakeri Food, Fun and Fitness Internet program for girls: influencing log-on rate Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2008; 23(2): 228 - 237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Bhatti, A. J. Sigurdson, S. S. Wang, J. Chen, N. Rothman, P. Hartge, A. W. Bergen, and M. T. Landi Genetic Variation and Willingness to Participate in Epidemiologic Research: Data from Three Studies Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2005; 14(10): 2449 - 2453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Rosoff, C. Werner, E. C. Clipp, A. B. Guill, M. Bonner, and W. Demark-Wahnefried Response Rates to a Mailed Survey Targeting Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Comparison of Conditional versus Unconditional Incentives Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1330 - 1332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. F. Coogan and L. Rosenberg Impact of a Financial Incentive on Case and Control Participation in a Telephone Interview Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2004; 160(3): 295 - 298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|